| chat.freenode.net #tryton log beginning Sun Dec 14 00:00:02 CET 2008 | ||
| 2008-12-14 00:06 -!- X0d_of_N0d(n=syn@damnation.neg9.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 01:05 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-67-170-212-242.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 03:40 -!- ikks(n=igor@190.12.153.202) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 04:54 -!- juanfer(n=juanfer@190.157.143.212) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 05:19 -!- yangoon(n=mathiasb@p549F7725.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 09:27 -!- carlos(n=carlos@70.Red-81-38-54.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 09:44 -!- ChanServ(ChanServ@services.) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 09:44 -!- bacule(n=bacule@chrisdennis.org.uk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 09:45 -!- panthera(n=daniel@unable-to-package.org) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 10:02 -!- Timitos(n=Timitos@88.217.184.172) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 10:07 -!- carlos(n=carlos@37.Red-81-44-74.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 10:15 -!- Gedd(n=ged@77.109.115.41.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 11:02 -!- udono(n=udono@dynamic-unidsl-85-197-16-94.westend.de) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 12:11 -!- cedk(n=ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 12:50 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 15:07 <CIA-53> tryton: matb roundup * #423/operator: contains behaves strange with underscores: [chatting] 11.12.08 on IRC: (19:36:07) bechamel: yangoon: there is a little subtlety with "word begins", actualy the exact wording should be "cont ... | ||
| 2008-12-14 15:09 -!- sharkcz(n=dan@plz1-v-4-17.static.adsl.vol.cz) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 15:25 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.76.132) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 15:38 <udono> http://www.openerp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27730#27730 | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:10 -!- rvalyi(i=564b0b39@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-9c9e46661e43daa1) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:11 <rvalyi> HI guys, I'm playing with a Ruby on Rails backed by OpenERP server proto, but now I'm facing hard tradeoffs, anyone interrested? | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:14 <CIA-53> tryton: udono roundup * #674/Modules: Userside switching language doesn't work any longer: [new] case: Create new database, default language= english. login and switch users language preference to german. Close the client, restart the s ... | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:15 <udono> rvalyi: Hi, interested in what? | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:15 <rvalyi> udono: discussing what are the best tradeoffs | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:16 <rvalyi> Bascially, I'm attempting to have Active Resource exposing the OpenERP server objects, that's a first step | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:17 <udono> rvalyi: sorry, I don't understand what your aim is. | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:17 <rvalyi> but when trying to back ActiveRecord by OpenERP server XML/RPC requests, I'm facing challenges: either forget the association/joins, either plug to the DB+XML/RPC for comuted fields but that woul mean working around the OpenERP security rules | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:18 <rvalyi> udono: I'm making a proto of a Rails Application where you could instanly have the OpenERP (or Tryton) data model loaded | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:18 <rvalyi> so you would code a Rails application (ecommerce, CMS, whatever) that woul be backed by OpenERP | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:19 <udono> rvalyi: sounds like another client application? | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:19 <rvalyi> it's like an other eTiny if you like | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:19 <udono> rvalyi: ok. | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:20 <udono> rvalyi: and you have problems with the XMLRPC communication? | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:20 <rvalyi> but that would be an eTiny that would be easy to customize, benefitting from all the Rails power | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:20 <rvalyi> not wth XML/RPC that one is easy | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:21 <rvalyi> the problem is: I can't re-implement a full blown ActiveRecord back by XML/RPC that's too much work | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:21 <rvalyi> so what else can I do: | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:21 <rvalyi> I can back the most usefull method lile find(:id) by XML/RPC | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:22 <rvalyi> I've this working already | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:22 <CIA-53> tryton: matb roundup * #673/Stable version 1.0.2: cannot create new database: Applied d920fe52cacb to 1.0.2 and works for me | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:22 <rvalyi> and exposed RESTFully using ActiveResource | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:23 <udono> rvalyi: don't know the concepts of RESTFully using ActiveResource, ActiveRecord? | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:23 <udono> rvalyi: is it ruby or openERP? | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:23 <rvalyi> ActiveRecord is the Rails ORM | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:23 <rvalyi> I want to back it by OpenERP | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:23 <udono> ACTION get an idea, slowly | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:24 <rvalyi> REST is the way to expose things on the web, built for simplicity and scalability. Google GData API is restfull for instance | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:24 <rvalyi> OpenERP/Tryton aren't restfull and it suck | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:25 <rvalyi> they use HTTP POST (XML/RPC) for idempotent requests, that suck | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:25 <rvalyi> ActiveResource is the Rails framework putting exposing resources RESTfully | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:26 <rvalyi> Basically, ActiveRecord could deal with OpenERP associations (like sale_order.order_lines) easily if I connect it to the dababase directly | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:26 <rvalyi> BUT: | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:27 <rvalyi> I can't do only that because that won't enforce the security rules (easy to reimplement though) neither work with computed fields (that's the point) | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:27 <rvalyi> so, an option is to have an hybrid ActiveRecord: half backed by the OpenERP DB directly | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:27 <rvalyi> and half back by XML/RPC for computed fields | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:28 <rvalyi> but I find it very strange, I don't know if that's crazy or not | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:28 <udono> rvalyi: makes no sense for me. Sounds undoable. You have an ORM which is under development and the API of Tryton/OpenERP which is under heavy development. I would not use a rubi ORM to interact with Tryton/OpenERP. Also I would not directly connect to the database layer, it breaks three-tiers. Instead use for simplicity an XMLRPC wrapper. | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:29 <rvalyi> if I only use the XML/RPC wrapper, I can't re-implement the associations, that woul be to much work | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:30 <rvalyi> then I don't knwo if the framework is usefull | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:30 <udono> rvalyi: don't understand. | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:30 <rvalyi> I don't want to re-implement eTiny: too much work too, espcially all the javascript quirks | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:31 <rvalyi> Rails is able to deal with model association as, performing SQL joins under the hood | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:32 <rvalyi> I can't benefit from those JOINS and transform them into XML/RPC requests: too hard/too much work | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:33 <rvalyi> unless If I plug Rails directly on the OpenERP database, specifying the foreign keys, then associations would work out of the box | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:33 <udono> rvalyi: All the client server communication is done with XMLRPC, so you can do the same. But if you like to make it as flrxible as the client do, there is no other way then to write (another) client... | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:35 <udono> rvalyi: pluggin Ruby directly to the database is a short solution. I promise you will have a lot of work to maintain it. Even more work then reimplement the client core functions in Ruby. | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:35 <rvalyi> udono: the point is that: either I re-implement a client, inferring the joins from the XML/RPC meta-data, but then that's a full blown client and not a Rails standard data model | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:35 <rvalyi> , either that a Rails std data model but with no support for the JOINS a nd advanced operations | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:36 <rvalyi> udono: my goal wouldn't be to re-implement a client (why?), I just woul like to make it straightforward to write a Rails app, using OpenERP, eventually as the back-office | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:37 <rvalyi> say I implement a killer CMS Front Office in Rails and let the back office backed by OpenERP | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:37 <rvalyi> I've too run, sorry | ||
| 2008-12-14 16:38 <udono> rvalyi: of course, because you want to connect to a modular system where you don't know which modules come and in the case of openERP you even don't know wich modules are already there. So implementing on database level means you need to check every change in framwork and all models, if they anylonger fit to your ORM concept. Implementing on XMLRPC level you just need to check if some general concept changes in one of the client. | ||
| 2008-12-14 17:26 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.76.132) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 17:27 -!- bechamel(n=user@85.201.76.132) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 17:47 <CIA-53> tryton: matb roundup * #675/Exception: ('UserError', 'Invalid XML for View!'): [new] Installing modules with -i all in new database: [Sun Dec 14 16:33:50 2008] INFO:init:module:account:loading fiscalyear.xml [Sun Dec 14 16:3 ... | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:18 -!- cristi_an(n=cristi@89.120.211.206) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:21 <cristi_an> hi to all | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:22 <cristi_an> is somebody active this sunday evening ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:23 <Timitos> crisit_an: hi ;-) | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:24 <cristi_an> hey hey | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:25 <cristi_an> i have been quite busy this week and did not had too much time to digg in more | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:28 <cristi_an> pricelist ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 18:28 <cristi_an> for tryton...or your prices for your services ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:03 -!- carlos(n=carlos@89.7.24.44) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:25 <cristi_an> companies....are different entities as partners ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:26 <cristi_an> comanies are not the entities that are the "owner","users" of the application ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:26 <Timitos> cristi_an: companies are the companies that are managed with tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:27 <cristi_an> yes...that is what i said in my own words | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:27 <cristi_an> :) | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:27 <cristi_an> but i created a company | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:27 <cristi_an> and it appears in my parties list | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:27 <cristi_an> which i assume are customers and suppliers | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:28 <Timitos> crisit_an: yes this is intended as the company can also be a party | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:28 <cristi_an> Timitos: i see | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:28 <Timitos> cristi_an: you can also relate the users of tryton to a party | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:28 <cristi_an> thx | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:28 <cristi_an> i understand. | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:29 <Timitos> cu | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:29 <cristi_an> cu | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:57 <udono> cedk: having problems with the new view inheritance an on_changes. | ||
| 2008-12-14 19:58 <udono> cedk: generally it is a good think, I find. But I have the problem, that the on_change is searched in the main model which inherits other models. | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:00 <udono> cedk: I have company --> party --> party_type inheritance. Now the company shows all views I defined in party_type, But some widgets have on_change methods defined in party_type. If I change one widget in the company, I get the error: Calling method on_change_type on object company.company is not allowed. | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:00 <udono> cedk: do you know what to do? | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:02 <udono> cedk: another topic is the restrict handling of x-path expression. I don't like to show some widgets on company, so I need x-path expression which can fail without error. | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:27 <cristi_an> Adminstration module is described in a document or so ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:28 <cristi_an> i am very courious what can i do with models (not modules) | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:28 <cristi_an> what are for example record rules | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:29 <cristi_an> what are and how can be used wokrflows | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:29 <cristi_an> etc etc | ||
| 2008-12-14 20:50 -!- rvalyi(i=564b0b39@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-ef0bc63d2f29787f) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 21:07 <CIA-53> tryton: matb roundup * #657/Additional fields of inherited report also created for parent module: very strange: initially with one new database and the custom module installed it seemed to work (trans_odt_inherit1.png), but I couldn't reproduce ... | ||
| 2008-12-14 21:08 <CIA-53> tryton: matb roundup * #657/Additional fields of inherited report also created for parent module: Forgot summary: So now the items are only shown as belonging to module account_invoice, no more entries for account_invoice_custom. | ||
| 2008-12-14 21:20 -!- Cristi_an(n=Cristi@89.120.211.206) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 21:37 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-67-170-212-242.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:30 <rvalyi> guys, for those of you who noticed the recent debate around dates in account move lines in OpenERP, is looks it has been fixed: http://acysos-openerp.blogspot.com/ (see comments) | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:32 <cedk> rvalyi: we had it since very long time, but I don't know how OpenERP will handle the migration | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:33 <cedk> as it can have many dates for one move | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:33 <rvalyi> cedk: they didn't put it at the move level | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:34 <cedk> rvalyi: where ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:34 <cedk> rvalyi: I can not check as launch seems to be again down | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:34 <rvalyi> 2 sec | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:36 <rvalyi> cedk: sorry, it's actually at the account_move evel, but not the account_move line level | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:37 <rvalyi> I guess a account_move is like a stock.picking then | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:37 <rvalyi> cedk: were you talking about the migration from 4.2 to 5 ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:37 <cedk> rvalyi: yes of coursr | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:37 <rvalyi> IMHO, for accounting that would be VERY VERY hard | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:37 <rvalyi> I don't even want to try | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:37 <rvalyi> that's why we put all our new customer to v5 | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:38 <cedk> rvalyi: if you have two dates on lines from the same move, which one will be migrated | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:38 <rvalyi> we don't want to migrate them | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:39 <cedk> rvalyi: ok, for news, but think about old users | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:39 <rvalyi> cedk: I played with a Rails app connected to the OpenERP server viw XML/RPC, but I'm stucked, interrested? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:40 <cedk> rvalyi: by the way, I talked about this issue 1 year ago | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:40 <rvalyi> cedk: I think old user have to forget about migrating their accounting, I would forget | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:40 <rvalyi> lol | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:41 <cedk> rvalyi: that is exactly what I named lake of long term vision | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:41 <rvalyi> for sure from v4 to v5 they didn't have that vision | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:41 <cedk> rvalyi: and don't you fear that the migration between 5.0 and 5.1 or 6.0 will not be also possible ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:42 <rvalyi> I hope they will do better from now one with larger contracts runnning, otherwise they will have dib troubles | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:42 <cedk> rvalyi: it is not a new project, so if for the version 5.0 they do this why not for futher | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:42 <rvalyi> I hope they are aware they are changing of scale now and they should do things more professionnaly, but I should say I do have concerns | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:44 <rvalyi> cedk: but before v5, they were hardly getting enough money (right?) so that was OK: no money, then no constraints. Now there is a lot of money flooding I think, so they will no longer have this excuse | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:44 <cedk> rvalyi: what do you know about the money in Tiny? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:45 <rvalyi> well, I'm guesing I should say | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:45 <rvalyi> but since some of the few guys they contracted had both no passion for open source + no talent, I guess they had not enough money to attract them | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:46 <rvalyi> now I think they are booming, so I think they should get some money | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:46 <cedk> rvalyi: don't understand whet you mean | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:47 <rvalyi> that was just about inferring there financial situation after their marketting/team | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:47 <rvalyi> I'm sorry, but when Fabien isn't there, it looks like there is nobody at Tiny.be | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:47 <bechamel> money and vision are two different thinks, lot of amateur projects have great visions and the opposite is also true | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:48 <rvalyi> I saw your commits so I'm not talking about you guys | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:48 <bechamel> rvalyi: it's a lack of delegation | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:48 <rvalyi> yeah, but my point was: before having money, I could perfectly excuse them. Now it's different | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:49 <rvalyi> I mean forgive them for not having the long term vision | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:49 <rvalyi> of course, I can't understand they still don't cross ref their fucking bugs/commits and they don't write docstrings | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:49 <yangoon> rvalyi: customers that cannot upgrade have to forgive... | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:49 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-67-170-212-242.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has left #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:49 <bechamel> especialy when your are the one who pays ;) | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:50 <rvalyi> bechamel: they were not enough paying compared to what ERP really cost. Or not paying enough, as you want. | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:50 <cedk> rvalyi: I don't think so | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:50 <rvalyi> SAP and others can only run because A LOT of money is flooding in | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:51 <rvalyi> they just had what theyr should for their money I think | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:51 <cedk> rvalyi: and if you look the answer from Fabien about the lake of long term vision, he says that they have it since the begining | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:52 <rvalyi> cedk: sure; almost everybody think this is some geek attitude that needs more maturity | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:52 <cedk> rvalyi: so it seems that the migration from 4.2 to 5.0 is in their long term vision | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:52 <rvalyi> but, I'm among the few ones who dare believed they could improve with the extra monay they are making now | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:53 <rvalyi> I think migrating form 4.2 is doable on a limited perimeter (without accounting) | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:53 <rvalyi> but also I doubt accounting was really OK before in v4 | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:53 <cedk> rvalyi: except that accounting is surely the most important stuff for a company | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:53 <rvalyi> at least for French standard it wasn't quite that | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:53 <bechamel> i don't agree, look at postgresql, it's a software that is IMHO more important part of tryton/openerp, it's maybe more valuable thant the python layer above it. but it's completely free, there is a good vision, it's very stable and each release is getting better | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:54 <rvalyi> I think it's far more easier to build a SGBD than an ERP unfortunately | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:54 <cedk> rvalyi: I don't think so, but for devs it is more funny | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:55 <cedk> rvalyi: will you say the same for a kernel, or a graphical library ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:55 <rvalyi> it has its hard parts, But I think overall it's a lot simpler. Less diferent things to master. Plus it will have a broader tech community, so this helps to. Unfortunally, most if the guys understanding ERP functionnal don't master computer science | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:55 <bechamel> erp world is not very sexy :) | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:56 <rvalyi> cedk: I actually think a full blown ERP is not that far from a kernel indeed in term of hard to get done right | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:56 <cedk> rvalyi: so it is not easier but it is more sexy for devs than ERP stuff | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:56 <cedk> rvalyi: I think you under valuate a kernel dev | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:57 <rvalyi> PLUS: the accounting community is divided geographically which does not happen in other open source projects like kernel or SGBD | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:57 <cedk> rvalyi: by the way, I think there is more ERP software than kernel in the world | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:57 <rvalyi> cedk for sure a kernel is harder, but I mean an ERP is closer to a kernel than a CMS | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:58 <cedk> rvalyi: CMS can mean many things | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:58 <rvalyi> cedk: interresting: but how many full blown open source ERP that are working for real? | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:58 <rvalyi> I really think OpenERP,Tryton are the only working ones | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:58 <cedk> rvalyi: and about the geographical division, it is very closed to different hardware | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:59 <rvalyi> plus Compiere if you like but it's hardly open source | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:59 <cedk> rvalyi: I talked about every ERP also the closed | ||
| 2008-12-14 22:59 <rvalyi> well, closed can be anything. It's just a lot of money involved, so for sure they can afford it | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:00 <rvalyi> and most of the ERP's started more than 15 years ago.. | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:00 <rvalyi> if not in the late 70's like SAP R/3 | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:00 <cedk> rvalyi: how many kernel do you know ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:01 <cedk> rvalyi: and compare it with how many ERP do you know ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:01 <bechamel> there is alos a lot of specialized soft, who can be seen like partial erp | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:01 <cedk> rvalyi: and the same with databases | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:01 <cedk> and ERP can means a lot of things | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:02 <bechamel> @all, about geekness, it's an issue that comes often to my mind, what should be done to remove/reduce the geeky aspect/feeling of openerp/tryton ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:03 <rvalyi> I mean, to manage to build a full blown generic ERP, you have no choice be also master a modular plateform, like Eclispe. Else it's not modular, it's monolithic and hererogene like SAP, but that second option means a LOT of money to maintain it | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:03 -!- mmarshall_(n=mmarshal@adsl-76-255-79-66.dsl.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:04 <rvalyi> bechamel: a few ideas, may I tell: | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:04 <rvalyi> * docstring + document stuff as it comes | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:05 <rvalyi> * continuous integration server + A LOT of functional tests, not the simple tests they have + public access to test result as new commits are made | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:05 <rvalyi> * stop re-inventing the wheel, plug on a real web server, use solid library. Use a standard ORM... | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:07 <rvalyi> stop tag commits: as improvement and bugfix: explain what you do (they still don't) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:07 <cedk> rvalyi: that is for OpenERP | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:08 <rvalyi> possibly use statically typed low level layers so stability is enforced by a compiler (for lowest layers, not the functionnal layer which is right in a dynamic language) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:08 <bechamel> rvalyi: what do you call continuous integration server ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:08 <rvalyi> cedk: sure, you are doing better here, no question | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:08 <rvalyi> bechamel: a server running lots of tests and displaying the results | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:09 <rvalyi> like Bamboo fro instance | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:09 <rvalyi> they are a ton of others, can't remember | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:09 <rvalyi> also : do and publish load tests | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:09 <bechamel> i agree with most of your items, but there are not easy to solve | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:09 <rvalyi> whichones, | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:09 <rvalyi> ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:10 <bechamel> most :) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:10 <cedk> bechamel: no we already most of it | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:10 <rvalyi> good for you | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:11 <bechamel> tests are boring to write and there are useful only if they provide a complete coverage (this means a lot of code) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:11 <cedk> but I don't agree with typing | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:11 <rvalyi> I think the issue with Tryton are others | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:11 <bechamel> use a proper orm: dificult because the current pseudo orm do a lot of thinks | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:11 <rvalyi> functionnal tests are not meant to cover all the code as it's imposible, but just ensure stupid regressions does not occur | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:12 <rvalyi> as it occurs everuy week with OpenERP | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:12 <rvalyi> bechamel: I don't think your ORM do more than ActiveRecord (Rails), do you? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:12 <cedk> rvalyi: we started to write unittest, but it is a good idea to make it running weekly on a server with public output | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <rvalyi> weekly? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <rvalyi> why not running it continuously | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <bechamel> rvalyi: the modularity also tends to complexify the situation, test should be done with a lot of different combinations of (non-)installed modules | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <cedk> rvalyi: doesn't need more | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <rvalyi> people having a web interface can use Selenium for this, it's great | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <rvalyi> sure | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:13 <rvalyi> guys, anyone, interested in discussing my Rails connector proto? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:14 <cedk> rvalyi: I don't know rails | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:14 <bechamel> rvalyi: sorry if it sounds harsh, but imho rails connector is a bit geeky :) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:14 <rvalyi> sad | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:14 <rvalyi> usre it is | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:14 <rvalyi> err, sure it is | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:15 <rvalyi> I've no problem with being a geek myself, but I should say it's a bit more tough to sell that to companies | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:16 <rvalyi> my goal was to have a Rails plugin that make your OpenERP/tryton data model available in a standard Rails app (like a CMS, an ecommerce). So I was backing the Rails ORM by XML:RPC requests to OpenERP/Tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:17 <rvalyi> BUT: if I do only XML/RPC, then I can't easy support associations/joins, so I can support only a very thin subset of the Rails ORM | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:17 <cedk> rvalyi: I don't understand, ORM is to connect to a database and not to objects | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:18 <rvalyi> I can almsot expose the OpenERP data model RESTfully, but I can't convert it on the fly to json or XML as a standard Rails model | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:18 <rvalyi> cedk: I'm faking the ORM interface, but it's baked by XML/RPC to OpenERP server | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:18 <cedk> rvalyi: but models are not just data, there is workflow, function, rules and so on | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:18 <rvalyi> sure, I don't really need those | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:19 <rvalyi> my goal is not to build yet an other client | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:19 <cedk> rvalyi: so your ORM has only minimal stuffs like read, search, create, delete ... | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:19 <rvalyi> but to help building a custom web app talking to OpenERP in the most transparent manner possible | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:19 <rvalyi> cedk: exaclty | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:19 <rvalyi> their is a second option still: | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:19 <rvalyi> have an hybrid system | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:20 <rvalyi> where my ORM is both: | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:20 <bechamel> rvalyi: what's your goal, another etiny (rtiny)? or someting more periferal (like a webshop) ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:20 <rvalyi> 1) backed by XML/RPC, this is especially sueful to load computed fields, enfoce access rules and all | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:20 <rvalyi> bechamel: no goal yet, just for fun for now | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:20 <rvalyi> (ecommerce or anything would then be possible) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:21 <rvalyi> 2) other part of the ORM: | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:21 <rvalyi> it would aslo plug directly to the OpenERP database, so: | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:21 <cedk> rvalyi: I don't understand to goals, if it is to write a webapp in ruby, just write your application and make some xmlrpc calls | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:21 <bechamel> rvalyi: i think something like an active gateway between rails and openrp is doable, another etiny must be very difficult | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:21 <rvalyi> I would have associations working out of the box | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:21 <rvalyi> + to_xml and to_json would also work | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:22 <rvalyi> bechamel: exacly I don't want to build yet an other eTiny because that's too much work, especially the Javascript quircks | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:22 <rvalyi> cedk: I would like the Rails to behave like if the OpenERP data model was part of it seamlessly | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:22 -!- yangoon1(n=mathiasb@p549F7725.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:23 <bechamel> rvalyi: doesn't rails comes with easy javascript features ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:23 <rvalyi> like doing Parner.find(1).sale_orders would fire up the right XML RPC requests and you could just display the result in your templating system for instance | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:24 <rvalyi> bechamel: sure, but I mean re-doing eTiny in rails would take me 3 months, that's too much for a geel project | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:24 <rvalyi> ,err geek spare time project | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:24 <cedk> rvalyi: ok, like making a library that bind to the ORM | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:24 <rvalyi> cedk: exaclty | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:24 <rvalyi> so my main questin is; | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:24 <cedk> rvalyi: that must be not too difficult, depending on how many methods there is in ruby | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:25 <cedk> rvalyi: and the problem will be that xmlrpc is not very efficient | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:25 <rvalyi> what do you think about such an hybrid model: both connected to the database, but also retrieving./writing fields using XML./RPC, and performing the JOINS via native Rails SQL abilities | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:25 <rvalyi> ? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:25 <rvalyi> cedk: (that's an other issue for sure) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:26 <cedk> rvalyi: you must do everythings throug xmlrpc | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:26 <rvalyi> how do you think the database will behave if it's requested at the very same time both by a Rails app and OpenERP server (to complete the requests for the python computed fields)? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:27 <rvalyi> cedk: then I can't easily support joins and all, because Rails is simply doing too much under the cover, I think I can't afford writting a wrapper for all the stuff | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:28 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-67-170-212-242.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:28 <rvalyi> for the moment I have an OpenERP resource (model), or even collection, exposed restfully mosty working | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:28 <cedk> rvalyi: don't know what is joins and it is not a problem if you don't suppoert every method as soon as it is documented :-) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:28 <rvalyi> but I was curious if more was not easy to do | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:29 <rvalyi> cedk: join: like whe n you do sale_order.order_lines this is a join between two models/tables | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:29 <cedk> rvalyi: so simply ask for order_lines to sale_order model | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:30 <rvalyi> Rails can do this out of the box if you plug it to the database, but if not, then Rails will try to fire SQL JOIN request and it will be hard for me to intercept that and fire XML/RPC instead | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:30 <rvalyi> cedk: sure, I've this already but I would like to know what I could do to offer more, just like if you were working with a Rails model | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:30 <cedk> rvalyi: for me you must provide an alternative library then the rails ORM that has the same methods | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:31 <rvalyi> (or an OpenERP one) | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:31 <rvalyi> cedk: That's what I started | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:31 <cedk> rvalyi: you must do somthing like the BrowseRecord | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:32 <rvalyi> but the point now is: if I don't plug Rails to the DB, then no JOIn natively suppored (too hard), if I do the contrary (hybrid sytem), what are the implications of such a system | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:33 <rvalyi> If following option 1), I could have somthing like: http://ackbar.rubyforge.org/ | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:34 <cedk> rvalyi: that seems to be good | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:35 <rvalyi> well, my question is isn't there anyway to get more easily? | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:35 <rvalyi> I don't think I'll do all myself | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:35 <rvalyi> but I'll post my ideas/code snippets on the internet and courageous people with more time could improve it as they whish | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:36 <rvalyi> I just would like to build a proff of concept actually | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:36 <cedk> rvalyi: I don't know enough about Rails ORM | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:36 <rvalyi> cedk: no problem | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:36 <rvalyi> sorry, dinner time for me | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:37 <rvalyi> wil be bac in an hour may be | ||
| 2008-12-14 23:57 -!- vengfulsquirrel(n=ian@c-67-170-212-242.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #tryton |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!